Well, that's a slight improvement. Well done. You are starting to try to support your assertions. One law. And two articles from a right wing magazine.
But even so, you still don't get it. You missed the point. The law isn't an equation.
You are assuming that the statute you cite is the be-all and end-all of the conversation. That your reading of one law declares certainty of argument and judgement. Or rather, your reading of an article and the author's conclusion equals "a fact".
I'm afraid that isn't how things work.
There's more law than one title in one section of one statute that a court will look at. This is why you have judges who preside over courts which consider competing arguments. One set of attorneys will say - this is about such and such. Another will say, no, that's wrong, here's why and this is what matters.
You may take sides. But the court decides. It might clarify areas of conflict between different laws. It might decide to disregard elements of the argument of each side. There's nuance in a judgement.
So for instance, the question in this case likely involves the establishment clause. What is your refutation of the opinion that the establishment clause is particularly relevant? It appears you think you can trump a constitutional rights statement using an immigration law? Usually, it kinda works the other way around. If there's a conflict between the constitution and a statute, the constitution wins.
So there's an important principle which you don't seem to know.
It doesn't mean the court will accept the invocation of the establishment clause. The president has wide - but not total - discretion in matters of national security. I am just pointing out that you don't know how to argue the law in the way that courts require attorneys to.
You still think the law is an equation. So I suggest you read some about this before suggesting once again that you are "asserting a fact" when in fact you are revealing a methodological deficiency. For a second time. Hey, I'm trying to be nice. You get some free learning on the alea board!
I also asked in my previous post how you would argue against the suits of the ACLU, the state of Washington and the previous AG's memorandum? Still waiting.
Here's some help in getting started:
"Ferguson argues that the Executive Order violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of Equal Protection and the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, infringes individuals’ constitutional right to Due Process and contravenes the federal Immigration and Nationality Act.
Major Washington state institutions supported the Attorney General’s lawsuit through declarations filed alongside the complaint. In their declarations, Amazon and Expedia set forth the detrimental ways the Executive Order impacts their operations and their employees."
http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-seeks-halt-trump-s-immigration-executive-order
Oh wait! It looks like three whole constitutional principles are involved in the argument. That's going to require a whole lot of thinking.
ps you might notice I suggested a principle that works in your favour, so you have something to employ as well as your statute. Good luck. I will look forward to your refutation and the several laws and constitutional principles which support your argument.
| 
Don't look now, but you're dissolving into the ever wishy-washy la la land of "everything is relative - especially when the facts are against me."